Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.  Plaintiff Aurice Veloso was employed by Defendant Leo David as a caregiver for his wife.  Plaintiff alleges that David asked her to sleep with him in exchange for improved working conditions and other financial incentives including a car and tuition.  David also allegedly made offensive remarks about Plaintiff’s menstrual period, personal hygiene and sexual activity.  Plaintiff further alleges that despite her working around the clock, she was not compensated for overtime or provided rest and meal breaks.  David then terminated Plaintiff when she opposed his alleged discrimination and harassment.   

Defendant paid Plaintiff’s wages through various companies he owned, including XCVI, LLC (“XCVI”), Construction for Less, Inc. (CFL), AMLease Corporation, and Tri-Net HR II, Inc..  Plaintiff is suing these corporate defendants as “joint employers.”  Plaintiff alleges these corporate defendants ratified and adopted the conduct of David.   

The operative complaint alleges claims for: (1) violations of Fair Employment and Housing Act; (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (3) violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5; (4) violation of California Wage & Hour Laws and Regulations; (5) assault and battery; (6) breach of oral and implied contract; (7) false promise/intentional misrepresentation; and (8) violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200.     

This hearing is on CFL’s motion to quash service of summons.  The Court previously denied an earlier filed motion to quash based on a proof of service showing CFL was served personally through its agent for service of process (Sharli Guta).  CFL then filed a second motion to quash, claiming Guta was not personally served, and substitute service was not effected as the documents were left with an “Alina (Doe)” who is not a member of Guta’s household.  After the second motion to quash was filed, Plaintiff submitted a proof of service showing Guta has been personally served, rendering this second motion to quash moot. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

“Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.”¿ (AO Alfa-Bank v. Yakovlev (2018) 21¿Cal.App.5th 189, 202.)¿ “To establish personal jurisdiction, compliance with statutory procedures for service of process is essential.”¿ (Kremerman v. White (2021). 71 Cal.App.5th 358, 371.)¿  

But the statutory requirements are to be liberally construed to uphold jurisdiction, rather than defeat it.  (Pasadena Medi-Center Assocs. v. Sup.Ct. (Houts)¿(1973) 9 Cal.3d 773, 778 (“The provisions of this chapter should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by the defendant,¿and in the last analysis the question of service should be resolved by considering each situation from a practical standpoint.”)  

Defendant’s knowledge of the action does not dispense with statutory requirements for service of summons.¿ (Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1457, 1466.)  However, as long as the defendant receives actual notice of the lawsuit,¿substantial compliance¿with the Code provisions governing service of summons will generally be held sufficient.  (Summers v. McClanahan¿(2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 410-411 (¿“It is well settled that strict compliance with statutes governing service of process is not required.  Rather, in deciding whether service was valid, the statutory provisions regarding service of¿process should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by the defendant.”).) 

“A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow” may move “to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her” that results from lack of proper service.¿ (Code of Civ. Proc. §418.10(a)(1).¿ A defendant has 30 days after the service of the summons to file a responsive pleading.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §412.20(a)(3).)¿¿ 

“When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process ‘the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’” (Summers v. McClanahan¿(2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)¿ 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

CFL requests judicial notice of various documents filed in this action.  The Court grants CFL’s request for judicial notice (“RJN”) pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code §§ 452(d) and 453.    

DISCUSSION 

The Code authorizes service on a corporation through (1) “the person designated as agent for service of process” and (ii) “the president, chief executive officer, or other head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or chief financial officer, a general manager or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process.”  Code Civ. Proc. §416.10(a)-(b).   

Here, Plaintiff has submitted a proof of service showing CFL’s agent for service of process (Sharli Guta) was served personally.  (Ex. 1 to Chinchilla Decl.)  The filing of a proof of service that complies with the statutory requirements creates a rebuttable presumption.  Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal. App. 4th 1426, 1441-1442; 1 Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 1997) § 4:148.2, 4:165, pp. 4-32.20, 4-32.23, rev. # 1, 1997.)  CFL has not rebutted that presumption.  CFL has not countered Plaintiff’s claim that personal service has now been effected on CFL’s agent for service.  A reply was due by March 14, and CFL has not filed a reply in support of its motion to quash.         

On these facts, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s personal service of Guta moots this motion to quash.     

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES as moot Defendant CFL’s motion to quash service of summons. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: March 22, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court